The stimulus relief package includes strong stimulus for families with children who will receive direct funding for every child they have. This means that we are one step closer to a guaranteed annual income. This is what I have been preaching; money directly in the hands of people benefits them more strongly and directly than grants which can be inefficient. Kudos to all who developed this policy. Written by Paul Dribin
mailchi.mp/1b4df156689a/icymi-seeds-first-year-results
This backs up what I have been saying.
The coronavirus relief efforts that have expired were remarkable successful at keeping people out of poverty in the short term. The additional unemployment plus the one time tax refunds helped millions of people stabilize their lives and prevent more poverty. We should learn a lesson from this for general public policy. A comprehensive program of cash payments to poor people could end poverty and stabilize the economy. Why don’t we implement such a program? I suspect vested interests. Written by Paul Dribin
I am an advocate of a very simple idea, that low income Americans should be granted a guaranteed annual income. The idea has been around a long time and was even proposed by President Richard Nixon. These funds could be used however the user deemed fit and would replace categorical programs with a multitude of rules. The advantages are many:
1. All the funds flow directly to the individual, no middleman.
2. It puts the responsibility for the used where it belongs, on the individual.
3. It is administratively simple.
4. I housing and other low income programs it gives the recipient the choice of living where they want.
There are examples of this type of approach working. Both the Social Security Program, and Low Income Tax Credit provide direct transfers of funds to low income people and have brought millions of people out of poverty. Unfortunately, vested interests have lobbied against the type of change I have suggested. It is time to begin anew. Written by Paul Dribin
This is an interesting article from the New York Times about a test of an annual income in Stockton California. I believe some form of a guaranteed income is the way to go. Too much of the funding of traditional housing programs goes to third parties and does not benefit the recipient. Written by Paul Dribin
The St Louis Contrarian 